Integral Institute Report on Marc Gafni – Conclusions and Summary
by Dr. Clint Fuhs
Over the past two months, I have received repeated requests to share the summary of an internal report that I wrote for Integral Institute in 2007/2008. It is admittedly with some reluctance that I share this summary report now. My reluctance does not stem from a desire to not share my views on this situation. Rather, it’s rooted in two sources. First, this summary does not contain any of the evidence I reviewed—email records, instant messages, other reports, discussions with Ken and Marc Gafni, etc. As such, this summary is merely informational; it cannot be the basis for a dialogue concerning such evidence. Without all parties having reviewed the same information a meaningful, authentic, or fair dialogue cannot take place.
Because of this, I will not engage in a debate of what this report contains. I stand behind my initial conclusions, and new evidence and subsequent events and related allegations, while accounted for, have not shifted those conclusions. Second, I suspect this will have little positive effect on the current “debate.” Mostly, because the parties to that “debate” do not appear interested in a dialogue or in reviewing actual evidence. They appear to have their minds made up and their primary interest seems to be taking Marc down even as they cloak it in the fig leaf of “saving” or “protecting” others by getting them to view the situation as they do.
Why release it then? Well, I am reminded that the handful of voices that characterize this “debate” are but a small fraction of the people who have an interest in this situation. Perhaps, there are many more folks who will benefit from reading a set of conclusions based on a review of the facts rather than personal feelings and alternate agendas.
I was present on the day that Marc arrived back in the US from Israel in 2006. I did not know Marc well at the time—I had only attended two of his teachings—but I ended up driving him to the airport. During that drive, I made the decision to move closer – to the person, to the situation, to the mess, and hopefully to a better approximation of the truth. I was working closely with Ken Wilber and had a professional interest in learning more about the truth behind the allegations. Personally, however, moving closer felt like the only appropriate action. If I was, indeed, going to develop and share a personal opinion on the nature of an appropriate response, this was the only move I could make.
Because of this decision, I got access, over a period of a year, to a mountain of data and documentation that only a handful of people have seen and a smaller handful have actually reviewed. I saw emails between Marc and the original complainants, and I spoke to Ken about the dozens of hours he spent on the phone with the involved parties. I also spoke extensively to Marc about the emails and other documents, along with the nature of the relationships and his decisions. By moving closer, I gained access to a set of information that was far closer to the truth than any of the hundreds of opinions thrown around on the internet presently.
I do not have a personal need for any given person to feel one way or another about Marc. But, I do have a personal need to embody and defend principles of justice and fairness. I also have a need to not contribute in any way to the trial-by-internet of any person, regardless of guilt or innocence. As such, I have not played an active role in the discussions surrounding any person subjected to any such trial. However, in the context of sharing this report, which stemmed from a move closer and not a move away, I will call out a particular subset of parties who have chosen to move away and attack.
Moving away, in and of itself, is not a problem. Everyone has the right to determine with whom they will engage. But, by moving away – i.e. refusing to engage in any form of dialogue or review of primary rather than secondary sources—and attacking you undermine the principles of justice which our roles in this community demand us to uphold—for the sake of collectively evolving such principles and for the sake of simple decency.
To those parties who have moved away and attacked (i.e., Ingber, Lester, Zerner, Smith, Dinan and others): Your repeated and intentional acts constitute a stark and massive failure of integrity, and they propagate principles that run counter to what you espouse in your work and what is required of you by the leaderships roles you hold. Stop trying to drag other people into your fucked up game.
To everyone else, I urge you to engage such people with caution. Develop your own opinions from your own review of whatever data you have access to. And remember that most of you will not have access to the information you need to inform a conclusion that is as solid as you might prefer. Such uncertainty is built into the fabric of an aperspectival universe. I have chosen to work with and engage Marc, and I will continue to do so. I hope others form their own opinions and weigh their chosen actions against both the nature of the information those opinions are derived from and the principles of justice you want to see flourish in this world.
Dr. Clint Fuhs, 2016
UPDATE (5/26/2016): It has been brought to my attention that some folks believe that the report summary linked to below is a forgery. That is not the case.
Also, this summary has been critiqued as having been doctored or edited (maliciously, I assume). In the opening of the report summary, I mentioned “edits” but I did not provide sufficient detail.
As repeatedly stated, this document contains a summary of the conclusion drawn in a larger, internal report. This document is not the complete report. The summary was edited prior to public release in three ways. First, certain names were removed. Second, brief excerpts from evidence that has not been publicly released were removed. And third, some of the syntax, along with grammatical errors and unclear language were adjusted. The report conclusions were not altered, as I have stated.
Next, I also explained in an unclear manner how this summary (not the full report) was updated over time. As you will see, the summary contains sections written in 2008, 2011, and 2014. Each of these sections also has an addendum. Over the last eight years, this summary (not the larger report) has been shared with I-I stakeholders, as required. As such, these additional sections were added, over time, so that this document mirrored our conclusions about each event, as it emerged and was investigated. Earlier conclusions were not altered when additional information was added.